The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Printable Version +- Rogue-Nation3 (https://rogue-nation3.com) +-- Forum: Around the World (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-24.html) +--- Forum: Europe (https://rogue-nation3.com/forum-27.html) +--- Thread: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. (/thread-4060.html) |
The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-08-2018 A smart person would've made sure that EU flag wouldn't have been seen... unless they wanted it to be seen. The European Union has an army. Quote:Armoured vehicles bearing EU flag STORM Paris in sign European Army already created.The Daily Star: RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Mystic Wanderer - 12-08-2018 Do you think they would really fire upon the citizens? What a silly question. Of course they would. Anything to protect the goal of the NWO, or now I think it's called Globalism. EVIL, EVIL PEOPLE!! RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Wallfire - 12-09-2018 Please remember that the APCs shown in the photos are very old, from the 70-80. I believe they are only used by the French police and as such would of been involved in training with other EU police forces, perhaps even used to train other non EU police forces, so its normal for them to have the EU mark. If these APCs are the best the "EU army" can field then we have very little to worry about RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-09-2018 (12-09-2018, 04:37 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Please remember that the APCs shown in the photos are very old, from the 70-80. I believe they are only used by the French police and as such would of been involved in training with other EU police forces, perhaps even used to train other non EU police forces, so its normal for them to have the EU mark. If these APCs are the best the "EU army" can field then we have very little to worry about Sorry Wallfire, I fell for the narrative! The EU emblem on an assumed French vehicle is a little unnerving though. RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Wallfire - 12-09-2018 (12-09-2018, 04:40 PM)BIAD Wrote:(12-09-2018, 04:37 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Please remember that the APCs shown in the photos are very old, from the 70-80. I believe they are only used by the French police and as such would of been involved in training with other EU police forces, perhaps even used to train other non EU police forces, so its normal for them to have the EU mark. If these APCs are the best the "EU army" can field then we have very little to worry about Yep I believe the EU emblem has been left there to unnerve people. I would hate that my police force carried this EU mark RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Ninurta - 12-09-2018 I understand they are French police vehicles, so why an EU flag? I'm certain that I'm missing something here. Why not a French flag if they are French police? What is the status of the EU politically? Is it an economic combine, or is it a nation now? If it's a nation, then of course it will have national police and an army - and the EU flag indicates to me that these may be French police, but in a national police force - sort of like an Ohioan working in the FBI, or a Virginian working for the US Marshal's Service. When we do that over here, we don't run our state flags, we run national (US) flags and national (agency) badges. If, on the other hand, it's just an economic combine, why in the hell does it need to run it's combine flag on law enforcement vehicles? That would be like running Proctor and Gamble emblems on our state police cars - that wouldn't fly very long here. Some economic combines here DO have private police forces, sworn law enforcement, but their jurisdiction is limited to company property. If they came out to meet a riot in public space, there would certainly be hell to pay. So, I'm sure I'm not understanding something here... or, rather, there. . RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-09-2018 (12-09-2018, 08:10 PM)Ninurta Wrote: ...So, I'm sure I'm not understanding something here... or, rather, there. It is a bit confusing. I'll look into it a bit more. *Glances at Wallfire for any assistance*! RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-09-2018 Just a taster! RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Wallfire - 12-10-2018 If the APCs have been involved in EU training it would be normal for them to have the EU flag. If they have been involved in training other police forces ( non EU) over seas it would also be normal to have the EU flag. I believe these APCs have been in storage so have to be made ready in a short time and some one just forgot to remove the flag. I have seen Finnish army vehicles driving around still carrying the SFOR markings RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-10-2018 (12-10-2018, 01:35 PM)Wallfire Wrote: If the APCs have been involved in EU training it would be normal for them to have the EU flag. If they have been involved in training other police forces ( non EU) over seas it would also be normal to have the EU flag. I still find it odd that an armoured personnel carrier has the EU badge on it! Training for the EU -a political and economic union of 28 member states, actually has military vehicles, is very strange to me and certainly using them to control an individual country's residents is very worrying. RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Wallfire - 12-10-2018 I found this info. I do know if the EU pays for something they want the EU flag on it. Quote:The EU flag on the APC may have denoted participation in the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF/EUROGENDFOR) — an embryonic Europe-wide paramilitary police force which, like the Eurocorps military force often seen raising the EU flag outside the European Parliament building, is not technically an EU organisation, but often involved in EU projects.source RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-10-2018 (12-10-2018, 02:42 PM)Wallfire Wrote: I found this info. I do know if the EU pays for something they want the EU flag on it. Yep... just like the novel 'Animal Farm' the pigs have recruited the farmer's dog's pups and trained them into their own army. RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - guohua - 12-10-2018 @"BIAD" Perfect analogy. RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Ninurta - 12-11-2018 OK, I'm SURE I'm confused now, and maybe just a little drunk. Just a little. The EU has a paramilitary force? Now, I've nothing against paramilitary forces per se, having worked in a few of them, but why does the EU need one, and how does it justify having one? It has become troublesome to me that the US has seen an increase in "paramilitary cops", what with the DHS having up-armored local police forces. Hell, even the podunk little town I live in has an armored vehicle supplied by DHS - it usually sits beside the road leading into town. It's problematic enough that I have developed plans to defeat it, should it ever come into play against me or mine. The damned thing will be a puddle - together with everything and everyone inside it - within 5 minutes of deployment against us, if that ever happens. This paramilitarization of the police started here in the early 80's, about the same time I was taking my police training. I have a simple rule - cops are cops, and soldiers are soldiers, and never the twain shall meet. One is either one or the other - cops do cop things, soldiers do soldier things. "Paramilitary" to me means "extracurricular military", not "police". If the EU is just an economic combine, what is it doing training foreign national forces? Shouldn't that properly be the remit of individual national forces within the EU? I get that corporations like Vinell train national forces like the Saudi Arabian military, but that is a corporation, not an "economic combine" of several member nations, purely for economic advantage of a populace. If the EU is actually a nation, with member states, shouldn't it be declaring a national military force? I'm just not understanding what the EU is actually claiming to be, I think... or it may be a difference in my US-centric vs. Eurocentric view of how things work. . RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - BIAD - 12-11-2018 (12-11-2018, 08:42 AM)Ninurta Wrote: ...I'm just not understanding what the EU is actually claiming to be, I think... or it may be a difference It's all about the Old World rules. As a peasant of the British Isles, I can only offer the information I was given by the Powers-That-Be during my younger years. This information may be incorrect at times, but it's unintentional and based on my perception of what happened then and where we are now. After the Second World War, Europe was basically buggered. You've got a number of impoverished countries picking themselves up from the resources-draining conflict and looking around to see how we could begin to re-establish each individual nation under the flag of peace for all. To create economic integration and therefore, improve the lives of those in the European countries, Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and West Germany agreed to trade within a set of rules involving easing Customs and bureaucracy. The alliance was agreed to have a set of constitutional ideals with the focus on making sure that trade was regulated and centralised and the agreed treaties pointed the way to supranational way of thinking. The United Kingdom wasn't an original signatory and it was 1963 when we first applied. In Old World tradition, De Gaulle vetoed it and did it again in 1967. The big-nosed bastard had to kick the bucket before we were eventually signed-up in 1972, but his perception of Britain (he was really thinking of England) wasn't totally wrong. So the European Union was built on the idea of a common marketplace where trade -between countries that agreed to the certain rules, would benefit via the use of stripping out centuries-old regulations of tariffs, Customs control and access to diverse products. Ironically, Britain called it 'The Common Market' and then later became generally accepted as 'The European Economic Community (EEC)'. The real problem -in my view, was when the EEC moved from trade and economics into politics. That's where the rot started. Don't get me wrong and I said, De Gaulle's view on Britain wasn't generally wrong. Our island-mentality can be a nuisance and even to the point where Germans used to call us 'Inselaffe'... island apes, a derogatory term due to our distrustful nature and the brutish obtuse view on anything offshore. England have always fought against and with France. France have always fought and with Spain, Germany fought because it was always being ganged-upon by the countries around it, the Irish fought themselves and England, when England pushed Scotland, Scotland nodded to France and around and around we all went. I have no idea what Belgium is, West Germany always needs watching because they always cause trouble, the Netherlands grows tulips, Italy sells leather goods and sided with Hitler, Luxembourg was a radio channel that played pop music and wavered in and out at night when the frequency was crap. And France... well, we've had our run-ins with them when we used bows and arrows and they were best-buds with the Pope. (The two-fingered gesture of Churchill derived from showing your two fingers at the French because when captured during those long-ago wars, French soldiers cut off those particular digits to stop an English soldier using the long bow). See...? The British working-class attitude of interacting with mainland Europe isn't very nice, is it?! .......................................... From trade to political control and then to becoming an Empire fit for Germany's approval. But an empire needs a country... or a set of countries under one banner. Quote:"The European flag symbolises both the European Union and, more broadly, the identity and unity of Europe.SOURCE1: The EU has a flag. .............................. But the many currencies of the countries that make up the EU can not assist a viable, stable economy and so the Euro appeared. The United States of America have the dollar, a currency that holds great sway across the globe, why not have one that rivals it? Quote:'...The euro is the second largest reserve currency as well as the second most traded currency in the worldSOURCE2: The EU has its own money. .............................. Religion gets a pass when dealing with modern-day Europe. The dominant Judaic Christianity religion no longer holds a demanding control on Europeans and is affable alongside other religions. Quote:'The largest religion in Europe is Christianity, but irreligion and practical secularization are strong.SOURCE3: .............................. In regards of a EU military force, at the time of writing, I believe we're not there fully as an announced army, navy and air-force solely beholding to the European Union. Currently, forces from the respective countries make up the multinational military body that involves itself in peace-keeping and missions that the Council of the European Union deem appropriate. Quote:'Land forces:SOURCE4: But still, the EU has a military force... sort of. So as it stands, a large number of taxable people, a continent where all those people abide a flag, it's own money and an army. @Ninurta. You kicked Britain out of the US because you didn't like being controlled by those overseas. You know what it feels like! RE: The EU Army That They Said Wasn't Real. - Ninurta - 12-11-2018 @"BIAD" - Thanks for that explanation. What it looks like to me then is a nascent "United States of Europe" along the same lines as the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... a super "nation" composed of various member "states", which states are more or less autonomous - getting less and less autonomous as time goes by, until the sovereignty of each simply vanishes or is subsumed by the super nation, at which point they exist as "states" only in name. That's how it went here, anyhow. In the beginning, each "colony" was converted to a sovereign nation, with it's own military, economy, monetary supply minted in-house, etc. These states were then gathered together under a single umbrella "nation", whose purpose was simply to regulate commerce between the various member states, mediate disputes between them, and provide a unified stance to foreign nations. Then we "needed" a national currency as an exchange medium between the various member nations, and the dollar was born, based more on Spanish dollars than British pounds. we went along merrily that way for around 80 years. Over those years, there was a gradual loss of autonomy in the states, that autonomy giving way to the "needs" of more powerful economic interests. Then, about 80 years into the experiment, some of those nations tried to extract themselves from the super nation due to them having been placed at economic disadvantage by monied individuals in far away locations, and the American Civil war was pitched as a means of showing those breakaway nations just how much autonomy they had lost to the money-men. It was kinda like that line in the Eagles' song "Hotel California" - you could check out any time you liked, but you could never leave, and they damned well intended to show those break ways just who was really Boss, and who called the shots - the Money Men could not afford to lose the productive areas in the breakaway nations, as their own productivity relied on the raw materials produced there - the Money Men would have gone broke, so they pitched the war to keep those raw materials from leaving them and potentially trading those goods elsewhere for more profit. At the end of that war, the landscape in the break away nations was devastated, and the political landscape of the entire "Union" had changed. No longer was it a collection of nations under an economic umbrella, it was a solidified nation, a political entity rather than economic, all directed from a far away centralized location - exactly what we fought the Revolution to get away from in the first place. That's why the US has "states" as intermediate political entities between "counties" and "nation", a feature not found in most other organic nations. That is what it appears to me that the EU is trying to emulate. In the beginning, the US eschewed a "standing army" as well, and we were promised that would NEVER happen - state military forces ruled supreme in the military arena here, and were mostly composed of militias that were called up as needed, and then disbanded again (except for obligatory training exercises) in the times between "emergencies"... but after the Civil War (AKA "War between the States"), we found ourselves with a standing super-national army, and have had it ever since. I'm not as familiar with the history of the Soviet Union, but I suspect it developed along those same lines. Over time, since the Civil War, the US central government has become more rigid, inflexible, controlling, and demanding. That is understandable, I suppose, when we realize that the sole reason for the existence of political entities is to perpetuate themselves. A government ceases to exist when it stops governing, and so in order to remain relevant, the government passes more and more laws simply to justify it's own existence. When that government runs out of useful laws to pass, it starts passing ridiculous laws - it has to, in order to justify it's own existence and survive. It must be seen to be "governing". But we all know what happens to things when they become too rigid and inflexible. They snap, or shatter like a pane of glass under pressure, and cease to exist any way. I told my dad in 1976 (the "bicentennial" celebration of the founding of the US) that we had made it 200 years, but I doubted like hell that we would make it another hundred years. I stand by that assessment to this day, and the foregoing explanation is the reason why. I think the EU might want to wait a bit and see what happens here before they try to follow in our footsteps. . |